FBI v Apple
A research resource developed by Professor Clark D. Cunningham, W. Lee Burge Chair in Law & Ethics, Georgia State University College of Law
Back to Burge Chair Home Page: www.ClarkCunningham.org
Back to FBI v Apple Home Page

Cases: Vermont Supreme Court

In re Appeal of Application for Search Warrant, 2012 Vt. 102, 71 A.3d 1158 (2012), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 2391 (2013) (
-- a review of court records in Vermont does not show any subseqeunt criminal case filed against the person identified as the target of the search warrant

Search Warrant, Dec. 22, 2010 (Michael S. Kupersmith, Superior Court Judge, Chittenden Unit). The following provisions in the search warrant were approved by the Vermont Supreme Court:
-- "Inspection and investigation of the subject computer must be done by either an independent third party or specially trained computer personnel who are not involved in the investigation while staying behind a firewall, that is in the absence of other agents of the State, and subject to a ban on copying or communicating to any person or the State any information found on the subject computer other than digital evidence relating to identity theft offenses."
-- "Any digital evidence relating to the offenses being investigated must be segregated and redacted before it is provided to the State, no matter how intermingled it is."
-- "If the segregation is performed by State computer personnel, it is a condition of this warrant that the computer personnel will not disclose to the State investigators or prosecutors any information other than that which is the target of the warrant, that is, digital evidence of identity theft offenses."
-- "The search protocol must be designed to uncover only the information for which the State has probable cause"
-- "The government has at its disposal sophisticated hashing tools that allow identification of well-known illegal files (such as child pornography) that are not at issue in this case. These and similar search tools may not be used without specific authorization by the court."
-- "The government must return non-responsive data, keeping the court informed about when it has done so and what it has kept."
-- "Any remaining copies of the electronic data must be destroyed absent specific judicial authorization to do otherwise."
-- "Within the time specified in the warrant, the State must provide the issuing officer with a return disclosing precisely what data it has obtained as a consequence of the search, and what data it has returned to the party from whom it was seized. The return must include a sworn certificate that the government has destroyed or returned all copies of data that it is not entitled to keep."

American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont:

In re Appeal of App. for Search Warrant: amicus brief
Issue: Whether the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article Eleven of the Vermont Constitution permit judges to limit the invasiveness of searches of electronic devices.
Court: Vt. Supreme Court (docket no. 2010-479)
Counsel: Jay Rorty, ACLU Criminal Law Reform Proj.
  Jason Williamson, ACLU Criminal Law Reform Proj.
  Hanni Fakhoury, Electronic Frontier Foundation
  Catherine Crump, ACLU Speech, Privacy and Tech. Proj.
  Dan Barrett, ACLU of Vermont
Status: closed - United States Supreme Court denies certiorari; favorable pro-privacy Vt. Supreme Court ruling stands